PDA

View Full Version : Sampras v/s Nadal


joy
06-03-2006, 06:31 AM
Had these two greats played in the same era, who do you think would have prevailed in that inevitable rivalry of titans? How would Pete deal with Nadal? These two are the toughest guys the tennis has probebly seen but unfortunately they are to play in different times. Had it been Sampras now instead of that poor guy Federer, things would be really interesting and it would probably be the greatest rivalry a sport can ask for. But anyway, whom do you think would emerge on top in a contest between these two? Nadal is already on the right track to surpass every record in tennis. He's already won 16 titles, 6 masters title even before his 20th birthday. Sampras never won this many at the same age. Also Nadal has absolutely no rivals, not even any where close. So, if Pete played today, I think it would be a great battle if these two born champions and never say die men clash against each other. What do you think would happen in such a dream clash? Kindly, Forgive me for my poor English. I hope you got the point.

donnyz89
06-03-2006, 06:33 AM
I dont think Sampras would have much of an edge... Nadal can run all day and hit passing shots like no other. Faster surfaces, Sampras would dominate, but as the surface get slower, Nadal will gain edge, and on a slow clay court, Sampras wouldnt stand a chance.

HyperHorse
06-03-2006, 06:34 AM
its time Pete got off his *** and played some exhibitions against some of the young guns he hasnt faced....
:-P

LowProfile
06-03-2006, 07:26 AM
Pete would have no chance on clay courts. Federer at least is very close to Nadal on the clay. Both Fed and Sampras would kill Nadal on the grass and indoor courts. On hard courts, things would be a little more difficult to say. Both Sampras and Federer would be closer to Nadal on hardcourt. I'd say give Sampras the advantage over Nadal because of his constant attacking game.

mistapooh
06-03-2006, 07:27 AM
High spinny shots to 1handed backhands...and high spinny shots to an eastern forehand grip =(.

Rasta
06-03-2006, 07:33 AM
It might be similar to the Sampras - Agassi matchup. It remains to be seen whether Nadal will be as good on all surfaces as Agassi was(is?) however.

Max G.
06-03-2006, 07:45 AM
This is a pretty simple question to me...

On clay, Nadal would dominate hands-down.
On grass, Sampras would dominate hands-down.
On hardcourts, they'd exchange wins, with Sampras generally getting the better of Nadal on fast hardcourts and Nadal getting the better of Sampras on slow hardcourts.

yonex90
06-03-2006, 07:58 AM
Sampras would win on hard court or grass. Nadal would win on clay. This is if Sampras was back in his prime. He could never play the way he did now at his age after having no conditioning for years. He could still be really good if would condition again just like he says. I don't think he could match Federer at his age now though. It would be a some great tennis.

dh003i
06-03-2006, 08:02 AM
This is why I say, at least skills wise, Federer is better than Sampras. He destroys everyone on grass, like Sampras did. He's also the best on hard-court -- sorry, Nadal fan-boys, the only thing that counts is slams. And on clay, he's a great player, 2nd best clay-courter in the world today, and very close to Nadal.

Of course, nothing against Sampras. He's undisputeably one of the greatest ever, and had 14 slams. Federer now has 7 slams. Nadal has 1 slam.

I think it's very premature to say Nadal is one of the "greats". 1 grand slam does not make you great. Saying he's one of the greats is saying he's one of the greatest all-time. But if Nadal doesn't win another grand slam, no-one will be talking about him as one of the greatest ever. Therefore, the talk is unjustified at this time.

Let's just stick with the objective things: he's a great player, and 2nd best player in the world.

dandy2fast
06-03-2006, 08:07 AM
High spinny shots to 1handed backhands...and high spinny shots to an eastern forehand grip =(.

High spinny shots to the players who controls the net???:cool:

travlerajm
06-03-2006, 08:13 AM
Sampras on hardcourt and Grass. People forget that his racquet setup (14 oz, superhigh tension) is ideally suited to playing against heavy spin (unlike Federer's).

prostaff18
06-03-2006, 08:21 AM
Sampras would kill Nadal on every other surface than clay. It should be Federer vs Sampras, not Nadal. You guys forget that Fed is the number one by 2,465 points over Nadal and Fed won all of the other slams, Nadal has game but shouldn't be on the same page as the great Pete Sampras.

Eviscerator
06-03-2006, 08:33 AM
I have seen both play in person, so lets start there. You may think watching a player on TV gives you the same perspective, but you see different dimensions to their games in person.
My simple answer would be that Pete would dominate Nadal on grass, indoors, and quick hard court surfaces. Pete would probably win most of the matches on medium paced surfaces, but it would be close, especially if the conditions were hot. On slow hard courts or clay surfaces I'd say Nadal would win most of the time because Pete did not move as well, and his power is blunted.
The X Factor of course is Nadal's age, since he probably will improve, so it is hard to say how good he will be in his prime years, barring injury. Chances are good the aforementioned assessment would still apply, but Nadal has the potential to even things up on medium paced surfaces. How he would deal with the power game of Pete's serve and forehand would be the key because an average reply would be smothered by Pete at the net. How Pete would deal with Nadal's heavy topspin to his backhand would be another interesting thing to see, since very few players hit as heavy of a ball as Nadal. Then again, would Nadal have that many opportunities to hit his loopy topspin shots when Pete flattened out his forehand, or blasted a serve and came in behind it?

All interesting things to consider, but just as we will never know who was better between Laver and Pete, we will never know the answer to this threads question.

BaseLineBash
06-03-2006, 08:41 AM
All interesting things to consider, but just as we will never know who was better between Laver and Pete, we will never know the answer to this threads question.
Don't be so sure of yourself buddy! I'm good friends with Doc Brown and I have a DeLorean.

thejuice
06-03-2006, 09:08 AM
I think Agassi vs. Nadal would have been a better rivalry because they both have the biggest hearts and can grind an opponent into the ground.

Grimjack
06-03-2006, 10:01 AM
If they had played in the same era, I don't think we'd have much to go on, because they'd pretty much never play one another.

Pete would have annihilated him at every meaningful tournament except the French -- but Pete would probably never get deep enough into the French to lose to him, either. Likewise, Nadal would never get deep enough at any of the other slams to suffer inevitable humiliation at Pete's hands.

This is why the Fed/Nadal head to head is grossly overstated. Nadal wins in the finals of these nothing tournaments on his specialty surface (which Fed gamely gets to the finals of anyway!), then bows out meekly the rest of the year before he has a chance to get slaughtered by Fed on a faster surface. Every time Roger wins a title, he has for all intents and purposes beaten Nadal head to head yet again.